N.Z. offered ‘sanitised’ version of war study

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32659, 15 July 1971, Page 1

N.Z. offered ‘sanitised’ version of war study

(N.Z.P.A. Staff Correspondent) WASHINGTON, July 14. American officials have apologised to the New Zealand Embassy for the “leak” in the “New York Times”- which gave details of a discussion between a high State Department official and a New Zealand diplomat on the Pentagon papers.

A dm i n i s t r a t i o n ' sources said today that } they did not know:, who had told the>< newspaper of the discus-)■ sion, during which New; t Zealand was told that; j parts of the papers ! would not be made avail-]’ able to it. The apology was made by:' the Deputy Assistant Secre- 1 tarv of State (Mr William H. |l Sullivan), according to these! 1 sources. One high State Department , official said the report had been embarrassing. The “leak” occurred after] a meeting between Mr Sulli-I van and the Minister at the! New Zealand Embassy (Mr] R. L. Jermyn). The New Zealand diplomat sought, on behalf of Parliament, a full copy of the Pentagon papers, and gave an assurance that it would be subjected to the same security precautions as the copies released by the Administration to Congress. The Embassy did not disclose that the request had been made, and officials were subsequently surprised to find it reported in the “New York Times.” The report told of the reply Mr Jermyn received and of a subsequent cable sent by the Secretary of State (Mr William P. Rogers), to the United States Ambassador in

Wellington livir ivennetn i Franzheim), saying the best ! New Zealand could hope for I would be a ‘"sanitised” ver- 1 sion when parts of the study t had been declassified. This “sanitised” version of t the study would not include ] four volumes considered I highly sensitive by the Ad-1 ministration. These apparent- < ly deal in detail with s America’s relations wjth its 1 war allies, and quite' likely I contain comment on the roles played, and attitudes adop- i ted by. New Zealand and I Australia up to 1968. I But although the Admini- ‘ stration will not hand over i

caese four vomnics, h cannot be sure in the present situation that excerpts, or even full details, from them will not appear in print. Dr Daniel Ellsberg, now awaiting trial for allegedly passing most of the study to the "New York Times,” has said that he withheld on his own initiative- sections of the study he believed particularly sensitive to United States international relations. The problem for the Administration is that if Dr Ellsberg had more information than was printed by the “New York Times” it is conceivable that more will sur-

face, including. sections from; the top-secret. Jour volumes. So much of the study has now been passed round to newspapers and politicians that sources of further embarrassment to the Administration are countless. It is evident, that the Ad» ministration is anxious to; make the most of its embar-] rassment, if only as backing] for its action to prevent, through the courts, publica-l tion of material contained in! the study. | A Boston grand jury is now! investigating possible criminal charges -against the “New| York Times,” the “Washing-] ton Post” and the “Boston! Globe” for publishing material contained in the papers. It is reported also to be examining the part played by a “New York Times” reporter, Mr Neil Sheehan, who is crediited with breaking the story of the Pentagon study.

Should action be taken against the newspapers and individuals involved at some stage in getting the study into print, any concern expressed by the allies of the United States about publication of the documents, and lack of United States security, will probably be cited by the Government to reinforce its case.